I’m not a lawyer, I just pretend to be one on the Internet so I apologize if there’s too much technical jargon in this post. But yesterday, CNN’s Daniel Burke reported that the United States Supreme Court told people who claim that the mere sight of a Christian cross compels them to become Christians or who claim to break out in a cold sweat whenever they hear someone say “Jesus Christ” to grow a pair and man the hell up:

If you don’t like it, leave the room.

That’s the essence of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s advice for atheists and others who object to sectarian prayers before government meetings.

In a 5-4 decision written by Kennedy, the Supreme Court allowed Greece, New York, to continue hosting prayers before its monthly town board meetings – even though an atheist and a Jewish citizen complained that the benedictions are almost always explicitly Christian.

Many members of the country’s majority faith – that is, Christians – hailed the ruling.

Considering the intellectual vacuity of court rulings on the Establishment Clause over the years, any schadenfreude yesterday, Chris? Yeah, a little bit. I’d use “wailing and gnashing of teeth” here but that’s Biblical and I don’t want to offend anyone.

Many members of minority faiths, as well as atheists, responded with palpable anger, saying the Supreme Court has set them apart as second-class citizens.

Groups from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism to the Hindu American Foundation decried Monday’s decision.

“The court’s decision to bless ‘majority-rules’ prayer is out of step with the changing face of America, which is more secular and less dogmatic,” said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which litigated the case.

If you don’t like it, step out of the room for a few moments.

But what about people who like their local government meetings to be religion-free?

“Should nonbelievers choose to exit the room during a prayer they find distasteful, their absence will not stand out as disrespectful or even noteworthy,” Kennedy writes.

Elections matter, folks. Because they can result in stupid people getting lifetime jobs.

She suggested that the five justices who formed the majority – all of whom are Catholic – don’t understand what it’s like to belong to a minority faith in America.

Did Burke happen to mention that the majority in this case was Roman Catholic?

The Supreme Court’s Catholic majority seems to think that, because many prayers before government meetings take on a ceremonial aspect, the actual content of the prayers doesn’t really matter, Kagan continues.

Just checking.

In essence, she said, the majority is arguing “What’s the big deal?” and making light of religious differences while conferring a special role on Christianity.

“Contrary to the majority’s apparent view, such sectarian prayers are not ‘part of our expressive idiom’ or ‘part of our heritage and tradition,’ assuming that ‘our’ refers to all Americans. They express beliefs that are fundamental to some, foreign to others – and because of that they carry the ever-present potential to divide and exclude.”

Ellie? Have you ever actually read the Establishment Clause? It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s it.

There’s nothing in there about division or exclusion or any of the rest of that hippie crap. Put it another way. What if that town board brought in a Muslim to offer a prayer one evening, he opened with “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful” and mentioned Mohammed a time or two, using that “peace and blessings be upon him” line?

Know what I would do if that happened, Ellie?

Absolutely nothing.

I wouldn’t make a scene or anything. But I wouldn’t pray. I’d sit there quietly and respectfully until the gentleman finished and then I guess we’d proceed with town business. The fact that a Muslim publicly prayed while I was in the room neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, as Mr. Jefferson once put it.

And it certainly doesn’t constitute an establishment of the Muslim religion in that town, Ellie, your tortured reading of the First Amendment notwithstanding.

One more thing. Atheists? What is the deal with you people? Why do you always turn up in stories like this? You don’t believe this stuff or at least you claim that you don’t so why legally force people who disagree with you to keep quiet? What difference does it make to you if someone publicly expresses concepts that you find absurd?

Sounds REAL insecure to me.

53 Comments to LEGAL NEWS

I found Justice Kagan’s example in her argument for the dissenters most amusing. She used the example of a Muslim woman who has come to address the town council who must endure a Christian prayer. Ever been to Saudi Arabia, Elle?

What saddens me is that this was another 5/4 decision. I just wish elected Presidents would focus on nominating Justices who focus on what the Constitution actually says rather than what they wish it said.

But that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

goddessoftheclassroomMay 6, 2014

Militant atheists dont’ just deny the existence of God; they want to be perceived stronger than what believers know to be God.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
What part of NO do you not understand?

gpppMay 6, 2014

It’s the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part the justices affirmed, John.

You haven’t had your rest stop quickie lately, have you?

FuinseoigMay 6, 2014

I knew it’d be “Blame the Catholics for this”.

Yes, it’s terrible: all those Catholic justices (who somehow or other managed to throw sacks over the heads of the Protestant potential judges and spirit them away to a dungeon in Rome) who are forcing the four Jewish justices to stay quiet and say nothing (probably they throw sacks over their heads and gag them, too).

I have to admit, I’m impressed: getting five modern Catholics to agree on a matter about prayer? Amazing!

William TigheMay 6, 2014

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

I agree with gppp, but the key word in the first part of the clause is not “no,” but, rather, “respecting.” It meant that while Congress (the Federal Government; had the Founding Fathers known what an immense usurpation of authority SCOTUS would perform in deciding questions [abortion, marriage, prayer in schools or at civic events etc.] meant to be resolved through the political process on the basis, instead, of concocting “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Bill of Rights, and even inventing the notion that the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments, rather than to the Federal Gov’t alone, they would have included “… and the federal judiciary”) could not establish a national church, it could neither prevent nor require states doing so, as they, through their normal political processes, determined to be fitting. That is what it meant, and that is all that it meant; the rest is mere judicial usurpation of authority properly pertaining to the citizenry and its elected representatives.

Gregg the obscureMay 6, 2014

He’s way off the mark with “more secular and less dogmatic”. The hue and cry about this demonstrates that there’s no one so dogmatic as secularists and, of course, that mainstay of contemporary public discourse: sociopathic sexual deviants.

JohnMay 6, 2014

gppp. I see you still have that piggy mindset.

JohnMay 6, 2014

I can guarantee that this five to four decision will be overturned in the future. A State organized prayer is not a free expression of faith.

Jacob MorganMay 6, 2014

Reminds me of Bradbury’s 451, in a short essay at the end of the book he states that tyranny comes from some minority being offended, thus the offending thing must be cut off of the culture, and if enough minorities find enough things to be offended over, there is not anything left of the culture but nihilistic pleasure seeking.

Atheists fancy themselves as strong-willed people who don’t need a sky-man for a crutch, who are free and bold, the actively evolving, the most smartest, the intelectual supermen…and then get their widdle feelings hurt when someone mentions God in a little town hall meeting. Who knew that such bold free thinking caused people to turn into such delicate hot house flowers?

Therese ZMay 6, 2014

The Mayor of a town is an individual as well as an elected official, and does not shed his personhood by becoming an arbiter of the state, John. Why do you attribute his desire to pray as coming from tool of the State (to use your scare quotes). I have a feeling you have never been an unelected or elected official of a municipal group: a library board, a beautification committee, a town council. If you had, you know you brought your individuality to the time of service. Perhaps you only see the office, not the service.

What on earth is the problem with taking turns with prayers, so that the “minorities” can have their month to pray? Each member of the town council, or each minister of a religious group in the town, can take their fair turn. If the atheists wish to organize and take their turn, too, and have a moment of silence, I presume, or perhaps a whiny outburst of victimhood, whichever, they get their turn too.

This shows up the latent immaturity of atheists: nobody else can have their moment, their turn, their display, their holiday. Authority is automatically The Man and to be resisted.

MarkMay 6, 2014

I agree with the ruling but predict it will lead to less prayer at public meetings, not more.

Now there is no basis for demanding that clergy water down their prayers to a bland generic civic faith, and in all but the smallest most homogeneous towns people will find they are uncomfortable with what they get when they ask real ministers of real religions to give real prayers. Most of them will just stop.

J. Stuart LittleMay 6, 2014

John,
Actually it says CONGRESS does it not? Of course the people trying to block the FREE exercise are those who brought the complaint. It is my understanding that the prayers were not LIMITED to Catlicks, but that they contacted ALL religious organizations to ask them for a prayer.

THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF is exactly what those who brought suite were attempting to limit.

Jacob MorganMay 6, 2014

The Founding Father’s wished to avoid a national church, e.g., the Church of England, where the leaders were appointed by the state, tax money went directly to that church to support religious ritual, where even the liturgy itself was subject to legislative control, and where other religions were forbidden. In England at the time even raising the host in the consecration was forbidden by law. Meanwhile the Founding Father’s referenced the Almightly throughout the Declaration of Independence (albeit while not part of the constitution, it sheds much light on what they were thinking), and the constitutional convention itself opened with prayer. If they were preaching that prayer in public was to be forbidden, why did they not practice it?

If the “establishment” of a religion were to be taken to the extreme, it would ban all religion. If the government protects the borders of the country, they therefore protect the land therein, so churches can’t be located therein because then the government would be providing security for churches. If building materials for churches or religious goods cross state lines in interstate commerce that could not be allowed as the Feds can legislate interstate commerce, so even allowing it to go on would be the approval of it. The FCC regulates telecommunications, so churches can’t have phone service at all, as the federal goverent is involved. The Feds regulate banking, so Churches can’t have bank accounts. Taken to it’s logical end the argument is silly.

To establish a religion, if Joe Shmoe were to establish Joe’s Church, Joe would select or create sacred writings, establish a place of worship, set some sort of ritual to take place in that place of worship, set up a system of faith and morals, and set up some sort of governance. If the Federal government did those things it would be establishing a religion. If Joe is on the city’s beautification committee, and he wants to open with a prayer to God to bless the city, Joe isn’t establishing anything. He would be taking part in the common culture and heritage of the community.

JohnMay 6, 2014

“THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF” of a government organized prayer. Cognitive dissonance.
The Mayor is free to pray whenever he wants but he is advised to pray in private- “You, however, when you pray, go into your private room and, after shutting your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; then your Father who looks on in secret will repay you.” Matt6

FuinseoigMay 6, 2014

John, I’m not an American. Where do you get from this decision that a “government organised prayer” will be typed up and sent out to every county council, village tidy towns committee and local neighbourhood watch and by force of law and on pain of being hauled away by the Inquisition, the people will have to stand up and recite this prayer?

The nearest I can figure out to what you fear – a truly “State organised prayer” – is your Pledge of Allegiance, and I don’t even mean the “under God” part, I mean the “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States etc.” part.

That’s civic religion, that’s compulsory religion (it goes above requiring the assent of the people and their loyalty, it makes an idol of the flag) and it’s State-organised in that there’s one official version, formally adopted by Congress, with accompanying ritual, and mandated across the nation.

The two most ardent separationists among the Founding Fathers, Madison and Jefferson, regularly attended religious services held in the chambers of the House of Representatives.

“Government organized prayer” is precisely what the dissenters were calling for yesterday as they wanted the Court to strike down the prayers for not being presented in a non-sectarian form.

“I agree with the Court’s decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), upholding the Nebraska Legislature’s tradition of beginning each session with a chaplain’s prayer. And I believe that pluralism and inclusion in a town hall can satisfy the constitutional requirement of neutrality; such a forum need not become a religion-free zone. But still, the Town of Greece should lose this case. The practice at issue here differs from the one sustained in Marsh because Greece’s town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given-directly to those citizens-were predominantly sectarian in content. Still more, Greece’s Board did nothing to recognize religious diversity: In arranging for clergy members to open each meeting, the Town never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions. So month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits. In my view, that practice does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government.”

In short they wanted the Supreme Court, an arm of the government, to become prayer police. Thank God wiser heads prevailed.

FW KenMay 6, 2014

One the one hand, I’m not much for the American Civil Religion. I’m old enough to remember morning announcements in school, ended with a morning devotional and prayer. Heck, I did a couple of them. In retrospect, the spiritual value was minimal; they mostly served as a unifying communal activity. I’m not sure prayers before governmental meetings are much different.

On the other hand, it’s fun to see a blow struck for civility. Our state office luncheons always begin with a blessing, which is usually Baptist in form. Of course, I can pray with Baptists, so I’m good with that. We have a Muslim man working here now, and were he to pray, I would listen with respect and say my own prayer silently.

As an aside, it’s interesting to see how destructive of community atheists are. Apparently, the only things they can build are gulags.

I cannot decide if the atheists (and John) are more afraid that people are praying, or that Someone might actually answer.

MichalMay 6, 2014

Well, the fact that the First Amendment refers ONLY to the Federal Government seems to impress very few. For the many: IT DOESN’T APPLY TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. As an example of pluralism I offer the following:

When I was in high school (some years ago…oh, and the phrase “under God” was not yet in the Pledge of Allegiance) we had various clergy offer prayers for assemblies, and such. Our town was a suburb of a city and completely surrounded by it. The clergy in the suburb included Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Conservative Judaic, and Orthodox Judaic folks. The Roman Catholics were just across the street in the city and were sometimes included, I think. Seemed to my young mind that the clergy took turns doing benedictions and NOBODY questioned the process. We were polite and sat quietly all the time. Had there been an imam handy, he, too, would have been included. Atheists need to back off some. Sheesh!

MarkMay 6, 2014

The First Amendment (and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) did not originally apply to the states; everyone agrees on that. But the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the courts as applying most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This has been pretty well settled since the ’50s.

You can still argue that the first and second amendments shouldn’t apply to the states if you want, but it’s the Fourteenth Amendment – its text and jursidprudence – that you need to consider.

My father was a highly intelligent atheist, yet he encouraged us children to go to Sunday School, etc. He was of the opinion that church services were good for our moral character.

dwstroudmd+May 6, 2014

John, don’t go to Greece, NY, for town council meetings and you’ll do just fine. Really.

JimMay 6, 2014

Unfortunately, our Legislature recently paid out $100,000 in a settlement to one of the atheist activists who started yelling and screaming trying to drown out the prayer offered before the opening of the day’s session. He was arrested by the sergeant-at-arms for disorderly behavior and disrupting the session, and then sued claiming his constitutional rights were violated.

Jacob MorganMay 6, 2014

So the Supreme Court essentially said that it would not have condemned the very constitutional convention (with it’s opening prayers and such) that invented the supreme court, glad we have that settled.

Scott W.May 6, 2014

mmmmm…delicious liberal tears.

gpppMay 6, 2014

Yes, Scott, very delicious tears. And it’s nice knowing that all the libs can do about it now is cry and scream.

John,
Your link is a lye when related to this case. They did NOT restrict it to Christians. It seems you cannot get it into the left of your brain. The place in NY contacted ALL religions groups in the community, not just Christians.

JohnMay 6, 2014

J. Stuart Little. Reminds me of the old “separate but equal” laws of the old South.

FW KenMay 6, 2014

Theocracy is so George W. Bush. But then, BDS never really goes ah, does it.

Myself, I think there is a strong argument that the real problem is the theocracy of liberal protestantism that is being legislated under Pres. Obama. He did, after all marinate in protestant leftism for 20 years.

unreconstructed rebelMay 6, 2014

Ya’ll are arguing with some very poorly written software.

J.M. HeinrichsMay 6, 2014

Yes, John, you definitely are separate, but you’ll need to work harder to achieve a modicum of equality.

Cheers

SouthCoastMay 6, 2014

Just for the record, I’d rather sit through almost any prayer than ever sit through any staff meeting again!

KatherineMay 6, 2014

FW Ken : “Myself, I think there is a strong argument that the real problem is the theocracy of liberal protestantism that is being legislated under Pres. Obama.”. Yup.

WarehouseMay 6, 2014

This decision is entirely unremarkable in light of the Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), which held legislative prayers offered before Nebraska legislative sessions by state paid chaplains did not violate the Establishment Clause. The issue in this case was the CONTENT of the prayer. That content was left up to the offering clergy – the Town of Greece had no prior notice or role approving the prayers. The dissenting Justices thought only generic prayers (eg., those which did not mention Jesus or specific doctrine) could pass muster.

However,(and I stress this point) the issue was never whether prayer itself should be prohibited. Said Justice Kagan in the dissenting opinion:

“None of this means that Greece’s town hall must be religion- or prayer-free. ‘[W]e are a religious people,’ [the case of ] Marsh observed ….and prayer draws some warrant from tradition in a town hall, as well as in Congress or a state legislature ….”

So, secularist have double reason for tears. Not only did the Court not require prayer be emptied of content, but their champions on the Court all agreed PRAYER (gasp!)in this public setting was permissible. Oh, the agony.

J. Stuart LittleMay 6, 2014

John,
It was a liberal news media article that I red that said they called ALL ministers of EVERY religion.

If ALL are invited to give their prayers what discrimination, what endorsement of any religion is given.

As to the “separate but equal” accusation you slammed me with, my response has ben censored by someone who recognizes that people like that are at a level I do not wish to descend to.

Bill (not IB)May 6, 2014

I’ve been reading these comments and laughing myself silly.

Yes, there is a clause in the Constitution that says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What almost NO ONE gets is that this doesn’t mean there couldn’t be established religions; it simply prevented Congress from being the one doing the establishing. There were state-established churches in a number of the colonies. This wasn’t a case of “there shall be no religion”, but rather “Congress shall not compel a single religion upon everyone.”

If you were to try and exercise “free religion” in Massachusetts, Maryland or Virginia (to pick a few) you would have discovered very quickly that there was only *one* acceptable church – that picked by the state. Others may have been tolerated, but barely.

In the 18th century, it was customary for the government to support a state-religion, and to collect taxes which were then turned over to that church to maintain its operations. In England, this was the CofE. In the Colonies, there were a variety of religions – Congregationalists, CofE, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Quakers – so there was no way a single church could be chosen in preference to all others by the federal government. They left it to the local people in each state/colony to determine what, if any church would be supported by public taxation.

Because of the rapid multiplication of faiths in the various colonies, it wasn’t long before establishment collapsed. But the notion that there would not be *some* kind of state supported religion would have been contrary to the thinking of most of the founding fathers. Remember, they were Federalists – which is what led to the War Between the States nearly a century later.

There’s a lot more to American history than what you can learn though sound-bites.

MarkMay 7, 2014

Yes Bill (not IB), you are right about the intention of the founders. But there’s breaking news: the “War Between the States” as you call it is over, and the anti-Federalists won, and passed the 14th amendment. We are not living under the constitution passed by the founders.

LaValletteMay 7, 2014

Sic semper tirannis! the tyrants being the most vocal supporters of tolerance and diversity. Atheists of course are just terrified of the non existent “boogeyman” they call God.

@ Jacob Morgan
May 6, 2014

“Reminds me of Bradbury’s 451, in a short essay at the end of the book he states that tyranny comes from some minority being offended, thus the offending thing must be cut off of the culture, and if enough minorities find enough things to be offended over, there is not anything left of the culture but nihilistic pleasure seeking”. Otherwise known as the inevitable outcome of the tyranny of the minority. “If everybody is somebody then no one is anybody”.

Gregg the obscureMay 7, 2014

The lefties propose, as always, a double standard: expressions of traditional religious beliefs must be relegated to private places and subjected to public scorn while expressions of progressive beliefs must not only be ubiquitous, but carry penalties against dissenters, such as bakers who choose not to bake cakes to celebrate blasphemous parodies of marriage.

FW KenMay 7, 2014

Mark Mark Mark

The War Between the States will NEVER be over. And the 14th Amendment? We don’t need no stinkin’ 14th Amendment. Well, I do like the due process stuff, and some of the other stuff.

But, in all seriousness, by abrogating the federal nature of our government structure, I think a lot of mischief has been done. The national government was not designed to bear the weight it’s made to bear. Unintended consequences and all that.

BobFMay 7, 2014

“Reminds me of the old “separate but equal” laws of the old South.”

John, that’s like saying that if a bunch of people at a company decide to order lunch at a restaurant that serves pork and there is one Muslim there who must refrain, this is a case of “separate but equal” and that some heinous hate crime akin to a lynching is being committed against him.

I realize it’s futile to reason with you. I just offer this for your consideration and hope that the light bulb will go off.

Bill (not IB)May 7, 2014

Mark,

To avoid stepping on toes, I tried to use a “neutral” term. Since I failed, it’s only fair to note the proper terminology for the proud state of Texas, as FW Ken will likely agree:

“The War of Northern Aggression.”

And, if we’re no longer living under the Constitution passed by the founders, what *is* the law of the land? Has the entire Constitution been repealed – and, if so, how come nobody bothered to announce it?

Yes, there are flaws in the Constitution, and efforts have certainly been made to circumvent it or re-interpret it. But it’s still there – dusty in some parts, with rips in it from careless handling – but I’d hate to think that the 1st Amendment is a thing of the past.

BobFMay 7, 2014

Mark, you seem to be suggesting this ruling violates the first amendment, if that amendment applies to states via the 14th amendment. Granting the latter, how so? That would only be the case if all people in the assembly were required to pray, or if laws were passed mandating religious observance. So your point about the 14th amendment seems irrelevant.

Popularity schmopularity. The who point of SC Justices appointed for life is precisely so that it isn’t blown about by every breeze that comes down the pipe.

dominic1955May 7, 2014

Oh please.

If only the SC had been handing out leftist drivel rulings like condoms at a PP booth, the PuffHo people would be calling for the Justices’ during-life Apotheosis.

I’m suprised these morons don’t remember that it was this same Supreme Court that held that Obamacare was constitutional and that DOMA was not. At the time, at least, the lefties were out crowing the glories of the Supreme Court and its secular infallibility since in struck down the dragon DOMA and made way for our (sic) “savior”‘s (PBUH) salvation! Holy crap, if they are such reactionaries why the hell did either one of those things make it through?

I, for one, want the Supreme Court a lifelong appointment. Had our justice system and lawyer culture been better, the system would work fairly well. However, term limits (sheesh, that’s also rich coming from PuffHo readership…) for the Supreme Court will only serve to make Supreme Court rulings as vapid and transitory to make a mockery of the supposed supremacy of that court.